Very often on the internet, radio, and TV, people make assumptions about what is and isn't protected and guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects political speech in that THE GOVERNMENT may not censor or punish unpopular political ideas or speech.

But there is nothing that requires ANYONE to listen to you, nor is anyone in the private sector required to give you a forum or platform to say whatever you want. No one on a radio show or on a website is required to let you say whatever you want. You have the freedom to say whatever you want to say. But they have the freedom to Ignore you or to say, "Fine, you can say whatever you want, but you can't say it HERE!" (Unless it is a Government institution or forum.)

It is NOT a violation of Free Speech rights if someone shouts you down or drowns out your words. They are exercising THEIR rights to freely express their disagreement with you.

There is NO constitutional right to BE HEARD. Radio stations and websites do not HAVE to let you say what you want. If you are on private property, including a company, they DO NOT have to let you say whatever you want on their property.

The First Amendment only guarantees that THE GOVERNMENT will not censor or punish you for expressing unpopular opinions or political views, or for expressing Religious beliefs. It does NOT protect you from the PRIVATE SECTOR reactions and consequences of your statements. Private individuals and private institutions may restrict most kinds of speech (with some exceptions) which they find offensive on their own property. Unpopular opinions may not be well received and they may even be shouted down. No one is required to LISTEN when you speak.

So....next time someone tries to use the First Amendment to bully you or guilt you into letting them say something you find offensive, remind them what the First Amendment DOESN'T SAY.

There is NO requirement under the Law that ANYONE listens to you or can even HEAR you over OTHER people exercising THEIR freedom of speech.

It may be rude, and it may be antithetical to creating an atmosphere of "tolerance" and "diversity" (as some institutions of higher learning claim--ironically--to be), but it is completely within a person's constitutional rights to shout down those they disagree with. The only place where you MUST be given you fair opportunity to speak is in the court of law when you are the Defendant.

Other than that, people are free to IGNORE you, boo you, shout their disapproval of you so loudly no one can hear you. Now, on the other hand, if you are on private property and those people come without permission, they can be THROWN OUT. If the disruption is on public property and could provoke violence or physical altercations, they can be shown the door or the two parties separated for security reasons.

But no one is REQUIRED by law to sit quietly and respectfully while you say whatever you want. That may be POLITE....but it is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.

People have the right to be *ssh*les if they so choose. That's not against the law. It's rude. But legal.

There is NO requirement under the Law that ANYONE listens to you or can even HEAR you over OTHER people exercising THEIR freedom of speech.

bob>Interesting. The right to protest supersedes the right to free speech? If so, then one has the right to keep someone's free speech from being used.

It may be rude, and it may be antithetical to creating an atmosphere of "tolerance" and "diversity" (as some institutions of higher learning claim--ironically--to be), but it is completely within a person's constitutional rights to shout down those they disagree with. The only place where you MUST be given you fair opportunity to speak is in the court of law when you are the Defendant.

bob>Well, the lawyers have taken over that right. Most criminal cases come to an end with the defendant not saying anything. I have always thought it not "legal" or "just" to allow the attorney to tell the "story" without being under oath, without having any first hand knowledge of the event, yet he's a witness and he doesn't have to tell the truth. Save the defendant, even if he's guilty is their goal. Do you agree?

Other than that, people are free to IGNORE you, boo you, shout their disapproval of you so loudly no one can hear you.

bob>Leave my mother in law out of this.

Now, on the other hand, if you are on private property and those people come without permission, they can be THROWN OUT. If the disruption is on public property and could provoke violence or physical altercations, they can be shown the door or the two parties separated for security reasons.

But no one is REQUIRED by law to sit quietly and respectfully while you say whatever you want. That may be POLITE....but it is NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.

People have the right to be *ssh*les if they so choose. That's not against the law. It's rude. But legal.

bob>We see on the tube "professional" protesters who break into stores and loot, set buildings and cars on fire, attack and beat those they disagree with and sometimes the police just stand by and watch.

bob>Well, the lawyers have taken over that right. Most criminal cases come to an end with the defendant not saying anything. I have always thought it not "legal" or "just" to allow the attorney to tell the "story" without being under oath, without having any first hand knowledge of the event, yet he's a witness and he doesn't have to tell the truth. Save the defendant, even if he's guilty is their goal. Do you agree?

Ginger>I think lawyers often know their client may be guilty but they are speaking for them no matter what they believe.

>>>bob>Interesting. The right to protest supersedes the right to free speech? If so, then one has the right to keep someone's free speech from being used. <<<

No. It us just that YOUR right to free speech and MY right to free speech are equal under the law. A protestor has the SAME right to express their views as you do. But they have the right also to express their views LOUDER than you, if they are able. And nothing says they cannot.

The right to free speech does NOT include the right to be HEARD. You must MAKE YOURSELF heard. But then, nothing says anyone has to LISTEN. You must PERSUADE them to listen. And if you cannot, that is them exercising THEIR right to freedom of association.

Protestors are not agents of the Government. They are not constrained by the First Amendment. They are exercising the SAME rights as you are. But if they have greater numbers and greater volume, they will be heard and you may not be. But again... nothing says anyone has to LISTEN to what they say. Just because you shout someone down does NOT mean you have won the argument. Many people will be turned OFF by loud, rude, oppressive demonstrators. Sometimes, shouting someone down makes THEM look bad and makes the other person more likely to be listened to.

The right to free speech does NOT mean that people have to sit quietly and respectfully while you say it.

Freedom is hard. If you give people the right to free speech, you have to allow that sometimes they will say things which boil your blood. And they have to recognize that others have the SAME rights to express their DISAGREEMENT with what they say.

There is no right to be heard.

But there is also no right to NOT BE OFFENDED.

Where we are today is that SOME people think they have the right to be HEARD, and other people think that the right to free speech does not include things THEY find offensive. Both are wrong.

The protestors who shout people down are rude and disruptive, and should be escorted away, where they can have their say elsewhere. But they do have the right to protest and the right to be rude and make *sses of themselves. And we have the right to express our disagreement with and disapproval of their views and tactics. And everyone has the right to make up their own minds as to who, if anyone, is right.

>>>bob>We see on the tube "professional" protesters who break into stores and loot, set buildings and cars on fire, attack and beat those they disagree with and sometimes the police just stand by and watch. <<<

Protesting is protected. There is no right to RIOT and LOOT.

The police stand by and watch because they have been ORDERED to do so by the mayor or governor. Experience has taught them that intervening sometimes escalates things and LIVES are lost. They have chosen, rightly or wrongly, to allow some destruction of property to avoid violence that would likely end in bloodshed. I personally disagree with that choice. There are plenty of NON-LETHAL ways of stopping looting and rioting, which can also prevent the destruction of property. They are not doing it, though, because the people have a RIGHT to root and loot. It is a cowardly CHOICE the mayors and governor's make to allow such looting and violent protests.

bob>Well, the lawyers have taken over that right. Most criminal cases come to an end with the defendant not saying anything. I have always thought it not "legal" or "just" to allow the attorney to tell the "story" without being under oath, without having any first hand knowledge of the event, yet he's a witness and he doesn't have to tell the truth. Save the defendant, even if he's guilty is their goal. Do you agree?

Ginger>I think lawyers often know their client may be guilty but they are speaking for them no matter what they believe.

bob>They think their job is to get them off or the best deal they can no matter if they are guilty. That is not justice! When they come before the judge, if they don't plead at all, the court enters them as not guilty, when they didn't say anything. Even if they do these things, the lawyer should not be allowed to "testify" before the jury that his client is not guilty and then come up with some made of story of who may have done it. We don't have a justice system.

>>>bob>Interesting. The right to protest supersedes the right to free speech? If so, then one has the right to keep someone's free speech from being used. <<< No. It us just that YOUR right to free speech and MY right to free speech are equal under the law. A protestor has the SAME right to express their views as you do. But they have the right also to express their views LOUDER than you, if they are able.

bob>They won't allow you to express your view at all.

And nothing says they cannot. The right to free speech does NOT include the right to be HEARD. You must MAKE YOURSELF heard. But then, nothing says anyone has to LISTEN. You must PERSUADE them to listen. And if you cannot, that is them exercising THEIR right to freedom of association. Protestors are not agents of the Government.

bob>Who says they aren't?

They are not constrained by the First Amendment. They are exercising the SAME rights as you are. But if they have greater numbers and greater volume, they will be heard and you may not be. But again... nothing says anyone has to LISTEN to what they say. Just because you shout someone down does NOT mean you have won the argument.

bob>There is no argument.

Many people will be turned OFF by loud, rude, oppressive demonstrators. Sometimes, shouting someone down makes THEM look bad and makes the other person more likely to be listened to. The right to free speech does NOT mean that people have to sit quietly and respectfully while you say it. Freedom is hard. If you give people the right to free speech, you have to allow that sometimes they will say things which boil your blood. And they have to recognize that others have the SAME rights to express their DISAGREEMENT with what they say. There is no right to be heard. But there is also no right to NOT BE OFFENDED. Where we are today is that SOME people think they have the right to be HEARD, and other people think that the right to free speech does not include things THEY find offensive. Both are wrong. The protestors who shout people down are rude and disruptive, and should be escorted away, where they can have their say elsewhere. But they do have the right to protest and the right to be rude and make *sses of themselves. And we have the right to express our disagreement with and disapproval of their views and tactics. And everyone has the right to make up their own minds as to who, if anyone, is right.

bob>let's keep in mind, only American citizens have these rights. Right/

>>>bob>We see on the tube "professional" protesters who break into stores and loot, set buildings and cars on fire, attack and beat those they disagree with and sometimes the police just stand by and watch. <<<

Protesting is protected. There is no right to RIOT and LOOT.

bob>That's the point to be made here. For some, protesting is a licence to look and so on.

The police stand by and watch because they have been ORDERED to do so by the mayor or governor. Experience has taught them that intervening sometimes escalates things and LIVES are lost. They have chosen, rightly or wrongly, to allow some destruction of property to avoid violence that would likely end in bloodshed. I personally disagree with that choice. There are plenty of NON-LETHAL ways of stopping looting and rioting, which can also prevent the destruction of property. They are not doing it, though, because the people have a RIGHT to root and loot. It is a cowardly CHOICE the mayors and governor's make to allow such looting and violent protests.

bob>They should never standby, they are sworn to protect and serve and that's 24/7